The RFU’s leadership would be prepared to support a radical change to red cards if trials in the southern hemisphere are deemed successful.
The proposed 20-minute red card law, which is being used in Super Rugby Pacific in Australia and New Zealand, allows a player who has been sent off to be replaced by a substitute after 20 minutes.
The prospect of an increasing number of red cards for unintentional contact to a player’s head has led RFU chiefs to believe there could be benefits to the law, sources have told The Times. Allowing a substitute after 20 minutes lessens the impact of early red cards damaging the game as a contest, but at the same time still punishes a player personally and they can still face further sanctions for reckless or violent behaviour.
The law is different to the “orange card” proposal, where a player is sin-binned for 20 minutes instead of ten under a yellow card.
The sending-off of Charlie Ewels 82 seconds into England’s match against Ireland on Saturday — it has been deemed a reckless tackle after his head made contact with James Ryan’s — has been a significant talking point this week.
Advertisement
The Bath lock has been banned for three matches but that will be reduced to two if he attends a “coaching intervention programme” — rugby’s equivalent of a driving speed awareness course — to improve his tackle technique.
Any move to introduce the 20-minute replacement law into English rugby would have to go through the RFU Laws Committee for full approval and also be approved as a trial by World Rugby. The international body decided against making the law a global trial last year but said it could be considered for more closed trials in individual competitions.
There was “a robust debate”, according to World Rugby insiders, but concerns were also aired that it could undermine player safety messaging. The body is likely to be asked to consider the law again after the results of the Super Rugby Pacific trial, though any change would be after next year’s Rugby World Cup.
World Rugby was concerned that the 20-minute substitution could send the wrong message at a time when the sport wanted to be totally focused on reducing head impacts, deterring upright tackles and changing the approaches of players as well as coaches. There was also an argument that players would be more inclined to be reckless if they were less concerned about the effect of a red card on the team.
Nevertheless, the first trial of the 20-minute red card law in last year’s Rugby Championship involving Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina won strong support from the coaches of the teams. Ian Foster, the New Zealand head coach, said in September that “all the SANZAAR countries are pretty united in wanting to carry on this trial”.
Advertisement
The law was invoked in September when the New Zealand full back Jordie Barrett was sent off in the 28th minute against Australia after his foot made contact with an opponent’s head when jumping for the ball. The All Blacks were allowed to bring on a substitute for most of the second half and ended up winning 38-21.
Australia’s coach Dave Rennie said at the time: “I think it’s good we’ve got a 20-minute red card at the moment because it was certainly not malicious.
“Based on law, when you field the ball and you kick your foot out and collect someone in the head, there’s going to be repercussions for that. I think the decision was probably accurate and the fact it was only 20 minutes is a good thing.”
